AAR: Decision-making for the gun-toting citizen, Milwaukee COPS and 10-32 Solutions.

[AMK]

AAR

What: Decision-making for the gun-toting citizen

Where/When: (sketchy-as-fuck) Milwaukee Mall in the Airsoft Extreme Arena, Friday March 13, 2015

Who: The class was put on in a joint effort between 10-32 Solutions and Milwaukee COPS- Kevin149 and ChadH/BC520 from the forums.


As the title describes, this class was a thinking class as opposed to a shooting class. It was designed to put those of us that attended in some very common real life situations with a few weapons and some bad guys- and then have us sort out how we would handle each situation.
The class was set up in four hour blocks on Friday and Saturday. I attended the Friday evening session that ran from 6-10pm. The class began with a ‘round table’ discussion dealing with the legalities of self-defense. While not an all-encompassing deep discussion of the law, it is always interesting hearing
from the blue side of the house when discussing these matters. This discussion was also interesting due to the fact that there were a number of out-of-staters from Illinois because this provided some insight into the similarities and differences they deal with when compared to Wisconsin.
After this, there was a safety brief which was short and sweet- basically “safety is number one and you will be patted down before entering the arena and again when you leave.”
Our safety gear included brand new goggles, a wire mesh face and ear protector, as well as a shemagh for neck protection. After grabbing these, we began the first scenario. This scenario would be the only one of the night that we would run one-by-one. I won’t go into detail about each scenario (there were 9), but this one was a sneaky one. All the scenarios that we were put into that night were all very real-life and set in places we find ourselves every day. Chad and Kevin did a very good job of keeping it true-to-life. I was very happy about this. While it may not be the “sexiest” thing, I find it all the more worthwhile.
Once we had debriefed the first scenario as a group, we split into two smaller groups for the sake of time. We worked through a ‘round-robin’ battery of four more scenarios (each group was given a dedicated role player). Each scenario only lasted about a minute or two- with one student participating with one role player, while the rest of the group watched and played things out in their heads. After each scenario ended, there was a debrief with the participating student first, then the rest of the group.
After a short break, we switched to the other instructor and ran through four more scenarios. I should mention that at the beginning of each scenario, the participant was given minimal information concerning what they were doing, where they were, the time of day, and possibly what they were seeing- and then setting them off to problem-solve. After our second set of four scenarios, we ended the night with a discussion about what we each learned.
Going into this class, I had no illusions about the speed at which bad things happen- including the ever-changing flow of a situation. But, it was great to pressure-test ourselves in this way. As the class description stated, this type of training is somewhat hard to obtain on the regular. While I have been through some ECQ type classes which included hands-on work, this type of pure scenario-based training was great. Overall, I feel that my performance was good, and did not get sucked into shooting someone when I did not have to. Although in two of my scenarios, I did feel it was necessary to draw my weapon to a somewhat discreet ready position. I was able to keep my feet moving while giving commands as well as talking to 911 and finding cover. There were certainly a few hiccups- I felt where I could have been smoother or moved a fraction of a second quicker, but that is all hindsight.

What I liked:

I liked that this class was put on. As I mentioned above, this type of training is not always readily available. I liked that the scenarios were short, to the point, and realistic. I really have no time or patience for fantasy camp. Again, good on Chad and Kevin.
Overall, the class was effective, met the goals that it stated it would accomplish, it was well thought out and was delivered from a solid base of knowledge. I would take this class again and would recommend it to both veteran gun carriers as well as those who may be considering the prospect of carrying a gun for self-defense.

What could be improved:

In the future I would like to see more role players. I understand this was the inaugural class, but even incorporating students as the stand-ins for victims, store clerks, or just other bystanders would be a great benefit. I believe that dealing with interactions during/after a conflict are important points to study. I would also like for students to be allowed to bring personal airsoft guns so we could run these scenarios as close to normal as possible. This includes carrying the type of gun you carry every day with the holster and the holster position. I have never felt weirder than when I was open carrying a S&W M&P in a Fobus holster on my strong side hip.


Finally, I would like to thank Kevin and Chad- I hope to train with you guys again in the near future, the other guys in the class, the folks from the airsoft arena for having us, the two role players, Paul (?) the uniform who was another layer of safety. Also, thanks to Dan Easterday for not making me walk to my car in that neighborhood at that time of night.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin 149]

After Action Report
Milwaukee COPS and
10-32 Solutions
Force-on-Force/Decision Making
3-13 and 3-14-15
Milwaukee, WI

Eighteen students joined us this past weekend for our first Force-on-Force class. We were glad to welcome almost half of our students…eight…for the first time. We hope you learned a thing or two, and hope you come back.

Before going too far, I want to thank Scott, Jonsey and the staff of the Air soft Arena and Tactical Toy Store, USA. Without your facility and support this would not have been possible. Paul, Jerry, Jay, Sebastian…you guys got shot dozens of times and simply walked away…and that, my friends, is bad-ass!

Force-on-Force is a logical “next step” after significant range training and experience. It pits students against live role players, in scripted, supervised scenarios, each of which is designed to highlight one or two specific learning points, while eliciting thought, decision making and articulation. It forces students to interact with real people…people that move, yell and swear at you. People that can’t hear you or just run away, or maybe simply stand there blocking your car. Unlike paper targets, live role players shoot back, and airsoft can sting. Unlike the typical shooting class, your targets move, and not every scenario ends with gunfire. Scenarios can take turns quickly, depending on the actions of the student.

But make no mistake; this is not a juvenile free-for-all.

The day started with a deadly force review and a few real-life examples. All students were familiar with the requirements for the use of deadly force, but it’s a serious topic, and a good review is always in order.

We had a dedicated safety officer that ensured participants didn’t inadvertently pick up live weapons and bring them into the arena. After a safety review and safety check, students were allowed into the Arena.

Once checked and inside the Arena, each student was an active participant in at least three scenarios, and all were able to not only watch other students, but to take part in each debrief. Even though not actively participating, students learned by watching, listening and de-briefing. Watching your peers go through similar, but different scenarios gives startling examples of how your perspective, your life experience and other things can influence how you interpret what you see; likewise the general un-reliability of eyewitnesses is on stark display. We also saw how just a little experience can enhance our ability to see, remember and report on events.

The best examples of perspective and life experience came from different students, after running the same scenario. The scenario was, while strolling through the park one beautiful day, (the sun is shining, the birds are singing….) you come upon an unknown male holding another unknown male, at gunpoint, on the ground, while giving commands to “stop, don’t move,” etc… Depending on your angle of approach, you may, or may not, see the officers’ badge on his belt. A difference of a couple steps made all the difference in the world. In the same scenario, two other students, using life experiences, mentioned that when they heard the commands, they assumed it was an undercover cop, and this affected their reaction. They still took cover and still called 911, but it was under the assumption that the guy with the gun was indeed a police officer making an arrest. The assumption turned out to be correct when the dispatcher told the student that there was an operation going on in the area. This particular scenario also showed us the inherent risks when getting involved in third party disputes, as one student shot the officer.

First impressions are lasting ones, and the first impression the police get of your incident, will likely be your call to 911. As part of the scenario, students were given cell phones and asked to call 911 after their incident. Initially students had no idea what to say, but after the third scenario, most had it down pretty well. Sometimes the student called in what ultimately turned out to be a non-event, like a joke between co-workers. Sometimes students were simply good witnesses to a third-party event. Sometimes the “dispatcher” got things wrong and accused the victim of being the suspect, or flip-flopped clothing descriptions. These things can and do happen in dynamic, high-stress situations, and I think it’s a pretty important portion of our training that needs to get more repetitions.

These two training days went down very well, and I want to thank all of our students for doing a very good job and paying attention.

I know of no other local companies offering Force-on-Force scenario training, and we have tentatively scheduled an additional class at The Airsoft Arena.

Please get a hold of myself or Chad with any questions. We are looking forward to seeing you.

Kevin L. Eyre
Milwaukee Community Outreach Partners, LLC
5114 South 27th Street
#210791
Milwaukee, WI, 53221
414-943-COPS (2677)
www.milwaukeecops.com
kevin@milwaukeecops.com

Chad Halvorson
10-32 Solutions
W21180 Halvorson Rd
Strum WI 54770
608-561-1032
www.10-32solutions.com

 

[Chad H/BC520]

10-32 Solutions/Milwaukee COPS CCW Scenarios AAR


March 13 and 14 were the inaugural CCW Scenario classes that Milwaukee COPS and 10-32 Solutions partnered up to offer. Scenarios have been a valuable tool for law enforcement. It allows for training to be conducted in areas where no range is needed or available in any weather, and they can be shorter in duration. Scenarios apply all the parts of the Combat Triangle or Pillars, whichever you subscribe to, and can be structured to address specific skills that need to be worked on. They require a substantial investment in safety equipment and tools on our part as well as extra personnel, and we hope it will be worth it. The firearms safety classes required for Wisconsin CCW permits often don’t address legalities, and the general public rarely gets the opportunity to work through use of force questions beyond simple “What-if?” discussions.

This was held at the Airsoft Arena, a 40,000 square foot facility located in the basement of the Mitchell Mall in the center of Milwaukee. It is the type of area that students were strongly advised to lock their doors when they got off of the freeway, and like clockwork I heard the KaTHUNK of the door locks when Kevin hit a certain intersection. The Airsoft Arena’s location of the mall is like a geode-rough looking, ordinary, and something most people wouldn’t take a second look at. But crack open a geode, and inside is a spectacular sparkling beauty. That is what our location gave us. We had structures and barricades and adverse lighting. There was enough space to allow two groups to separate, and the structures inside allowed us to get creative in how we set the stage for the students. The same area allowed students to visualize walking through the park, to clearing from their bedroom to investigate a noise on the other side of the house where a loved one slept.


Kevin’s excellent AAR hits a number of points already. One I will echo is the excellent learning opportunity I get in observing what students do. I wrote the scenarios to give the roleplayers a direction or two that would address the main ways I anticipated the students would react, but in the end there were still a couple where the actions taken or not taken surprised me. One example was where two students chose not to engage a person in the act of killing another person using a club. One of the reasons given was he feared it was an undercover officer using a baton. I also wrote them to try and provide shoot and no-shoot opportunities so that not every scenario was going to get the students used to pulling a trigger. The hesitation of many to use deadly force was a common occurrence. The liberal media’s mentality of trigger-happy permit holders turning Wisconsin streets into re-plays of the OK Corral was not evident with our students. Most of the time, articulation for why they didn’t act followed the theme of personal choices that were made about who they were going to stick their neck out for if it wasn’t their family, or good observations based on what they saw or didn’t see for imminent threat.

What sometimes was an equal concern is when deadly force wasn’t used that should have been used. One student continued to retreat while aiming a pistol at two threats who continued moving towards them. Tunnel vision entered into their performance, and it along with adrenaline affected their ability to process the incident. The same scenario with a different student found them doing the exact same retreat, and I had to end it when the student was standing there aiming a pistol at an armed threat aiming at him and sitting on the cell phone calling 911. It turned into an excellent learning experience for him as well as the rest of the group, as did all of the round-robin debriefs. The ability to go through training such as this led to students sometimes learning when they actually could or couldn’t use force.

The scenarios were also a test of how much students remembered instructions during previous classes. One scenario was set up with the roleplayer so that they would not cease being a threat until the students weapon went to slide lock. The intent was for the student to demonstrate shooting until the threat stopped. Many did, and it was interesting to note a couple of students who have been to our classes before fail to do this. One got into a good rhythm of firing a single shot after each shot from the deranged role player. The other only fired a couple and expected the scenario to stop because he got two good center hits. Again, good discussions and learning experiences all around at the debrief.

Students got to see firsthand how what they saw, heard or perceived sometimes was different than what others saw and heard, and sometimes different than what was actually said or done. These small and short scenarios got adrenaline flowing for some, and it showed how a little adrenaline could play havoc with the ability to hear, observe, and recollect. Many experienced tunnel vision. One student zeroed in on an unarmed roleplayer demanding money, failing to also take in the armed roleplayer friend a few feet behind the unarmed one. One experienced auditory exclusion.

The Saturday class got to go through a well-designed drill that the Friday class didn’t get time for. We decided that it was worth adjusting the class to get this one in. Named the Wall Drill, it was written by a WI DCI agent and a police supervisor in the region and I was helped run it during firearms training blocks for some academy classes. The premise is that the student starts behind a 6-foot portable wall with a pistol at low ready. They are instructed to step out and they are faced with a roleplayer in front of them. The student needs to take control of what they see and don’t see, and when control has been established the instructor tells the student to step back. The roleplayer quickly grabs the next prob, and the process is repeated for about five or six quick, rapid decision making scenarios. The entire process only takes about 2-3 minutes. There are no-shoot and shoot decisions built in, and two of the no-shoots also provide an opportunity for the instructor to evaluate reflexive fire tendencies the student may exhibit. A Tueller Drill is built in, as is a no-shoot decision involving a deaf person with a hammer and unable to hear commands from the student. It was written with the focus on an LEO making contact with someone, and I am working to fine tune it for CCW mindsets. I’ve seen a number of student responses over the times that I’ve administered this drill, including the role player chasing the academy student around the wall in circles with a firearm as the student fled and did not engage. It’s a very interesting drill to work with. Something also worth noting is that students commonly did not engage a threat advancing with a knife until they were about 8-10 feet away.

Overall, Kevin and I were immensely pleased at how these turned out, and we are looking forward to working with more of these.

 

[Dan Easterday]

AMK covered the what and where (I was in the Friday night class), so I will toss in my thoughts:

This was a very well done first outing that managed our time and our attention very well. Unlike other FoF classes that I have been to, the ability to actively watch others go through scenarios provided insights into how others make decisions and the assumptions that they operate under (wrong or right). My first scenario was awesome, and left me pumped on adrenaline, and also validated some of my training on how to maneuver people and control situations (given that Chad prepared me somewhat by relating his thought process behind devising it, and also where he got the idea from (TURGID), I had an inkling how it was going to go, and I also cheated by bringing my own flashlight). It was awesome that I got immersed into it so thoroughly that I didn't remember some of the specifics that I did or said and had to ask the observers about some of my actions afterwards. My second scenario was thought up on the fly by Kevin, and was both an awesome experience and a sober reminder that you might do everything well and still lose the fight.

I will Echo AMK's remarks about more role players, or using the other students (although this might take away from the learning side of things). Maybe have the groups alternate between role player and student/observer (group of ten, five students are role players for first five students, then swap?).

I want to also say that the two dedicated role players were fantastic, and the sheer awesomeness of having one of them start yelling at me in polish during a scenario totally interrupted my OODA loop (well done!).

At all times, this was a very professional class with serious teachers and students, and the atmosphere set by Kevin and chad was (as always) the right balance of serious and humorous. At no time did this degenerate into any kind of horseplay or foolishness, and everyone came to learn.

Bravo Zulu to 10-32 Solutions and Milwaukee COPS for an informative, entertaining, and relevant class.


EDIT: The Mitchell Mall is sketchy as fuck, and probably needs a MAGTF assault with Spookie and Warthog support to clean out the dark places.

 

[Chad H/BC520]

Kevin and I had a very in depth discussion about how much students would participate as role players. Believe me, it is something discussed to solve some issues we were coming up with. We came to the decision we did because having the students participate in that way can introduce a lot more variables that may also take away from the strict structure of how these scenarios were administered, meaning that the lessons we are pushing for to have learned may not get there because something else that a student roleplayer did inadvertently changed what the student going through the actual situation perceived. Another issue is that it opens up additional safety parameters we have to consider. It's not as much of an issue with airsoft as it would be with Sims or similar, but it still requires the same safety parameters in case they ever get used. Now, that's not saying no, we're not going to do it, just that to do it requires more prep on our part as instructors. It will come, so long as these continue to pan out.

Another possibility is hiring additional roleplayers. The equipment investment on our part is huge, and to keep our prices where they are to remain competitive, it will take a bit yet before we don't take a loss. We pay for our roleplayers time and because they get to get shot a bunch of times so we don't have to. We pay for quality, reliability, and dependability so we are not left hanging the day of the class. It is worth it to us in the long run, but it also is an expense. To add more roleplayers, we will need to ensure that these classes will be in demand. I'm not against it, and would actually like to see it, as more roleplayers can give me flexibility in the scenarios themselves.

Dan, I was actually impressed that you not only brought a flashlight, but that you considered is a necessary tool for a scenario I specifically clued you in was one where you retrieved your gun from the nightstand. The fact you used your flashlight to help you clear was something you and one other student had the foresight to actually do, and I was impressed to see it. Two others on Saturday did not have flashlights, and it became a discussion point.

AMK, thank you also for your review of what we did. I agree with your suggestion of allowing your own airsoft, and if you have your own setup that works for your carry style, by all means let us know next time and we can see what you have and if it will work.

 

[Dan Easterday]

Do you guys have any leads on a good Glock 19 analogue for airsoft training? I know that The Evil Empire has forbidden any imports on a commercial scale due to those pesky trademark issues, but I want something reliable that will fit in my current gear.

Also, since you touched on the flashlight thing, I think you guys should venture into some low light/flashlight training. I would be happy to take a class on that with you guys.

Thanks again, and consider me signed up for the next FoF class.

 

[Chad H/BC520]

That trademark issue prevents a lot of Glock options from being available. In a store with just about every other type of handgun modeled into an airsoft replica, the absence of Glock-types was a huge clue. I mean, there's even Ruger airsofts. But no Glock.

Best thing to do would be to call up the place we were at. Their main store in Waukesha was filled with more makes and models of weapons than I could comprehend. If only they were firearms for some of them...

We would love to venture into lowlight training. That facility I think would make for a very good possibility. As such, we'd need to do airsoft instead of live fire, but it could be doable. And we wouldn't need to wait until nighttime.

 

[AMK]

Kevin and I had a very in depth discussion about how much students would participate as role players. Believe me, it is something discussed to solve some issues we were coming up with. We came to the decision we did because having the students participate in that way can introduce a lot more variables that may also take away from the strict structure of how these scenarios were administered, meaning that the lessons we are pushing for to have learned may not get there because something else that a student roleplayer did inadvertently changed what the student going through the actual situation perceived. Another issue is that it opens up additional safety parameters we have to consider. It's not as much of an issue with airsoft as it would be with Sims or similar, but it still requires the same safety parameters in case they ever get used. Now, that's not saying no, we're not going to do it, just that to do it requires more prep on our part as instructors. It will come, so long as these continue to pan out.

Another possibility is hiring additional roleplayers. The equipment investment on our part is huge, and to keep our prices where they are to remain competitive, it will take a bit yet before we don't take a loss. We pay for our roleplayers time and because they get to get shot a bunch of times so we don't have to. We pay for quality, reliability, and dependability so we are not left hanging the day of the class. It is worth it to us in the long run, but it also is an expense. To add more roleplayers, we will need to ensure that these classes will be in demand. I'm not against it, and would actually like to see it, as more roleplayers can give me flexibility in the scenarios themselves.

Dan, I was actually impressed that you not only brought a flashlight, but that you considered is a necessary tool for a scenario I specifically clued you in was one where you retrieved your gun from the nightstand. The fact you used your flashlight to help you clear was something you and one other student had the foresight to actually do, and I was impressed to see it. Two others on Saturday did not have flashlights, and it became a discussion point.

AMK, thank you also for your review of what we did. I agree with your suggestion of allowing your own airsoft, and if you have your own setup that works for your carry style, by all means let us know next time and we can see what you have and if it will work.

Chad, thanks for adding your thought process on this. I agree, there is an added layer of complexity with having student role players. I understand that there is the possibility of loosing some learning points as a role player, but from the other side there is learning to be had as well. (I won't beat this to the ground just wanted to get my thoughts out.) The scenario in the convenience store could have been interesting simply by adding a student as a role player- playing a compliant/defiant cashier- yelling for help etc.



If needed, due to my proximity, I would be happy to help as a role player.

Again, hope to train with you soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chad H/BC520]

I definitely agree. There is a CCW Response to Active Shooter class I've had in the works for over a year now, and scenarios for that need to involve more than just a student and a single role player to adequately get out the confusion and need for target identification and isolation that's essential. I just wanted to get out why we haven't done it right away.

I'll let Kevin know of your interest.

 

[Mick-boy]

Just to add $.02 to the rolplayer issue;

For scenario training to be effective the role players need to understand the learning objectives and stick to the script.

We used Marines from Quantico for a few vetting classes where I work but this was less than optimal because the Marines wanted to "win" as soon as the scenario devolved into a fight (fist or gun). Recently we've been using other instructors from the training facility who are not (nor will be) students and members of the Virginia State Police. The important thing is for role players to understand that they aren't there to win. They are there to die gloriously while providing learning opportunities to the students. It's often very hard to get students (especially type A, Alpha males) to do this with any level of reliability.

So the risk the instructors (and I'm sure what the concern was here) is that a student will go off script and completely change the scenario, which screws the learning objectives for the student actually going through the scenario. It's a fine line to walk because, while a scenario might be improved by additional bodies, it can be completely derailed by someone going off script.

 

[ptrlcop]

Just to add $.02 to the rolplayer issue;

For scenario training to be effective the role players need to understand the learning objectives and stick to the script.

We used Marines from Quantico for a few vetting classes where I work but this was less than optimal because the Marines wanted to "win" as soon as the scenario devolved into a fight (fist or gun). Recently we've been using other instructors from the training facility who are not (nor will be) students and members of the Virginia State Police. The important thing is for role players to understand that they aren't there to win. They are there to die gloriously while providing learning opportunities to the students. It's often very hard to get students (especially type A, Alpha males) to do this with any level of reliability.

So the risk the instructors (and I'm sure what the concern was here) is that a student will go off script and completely change the scenario, which screws the learning objectives for the student actually going through the scenario. It's a fine line to walk because, while a scenario might be improved by additional bodies, it can be completely derailed by someone going off script.

+1000

I've done some of this where I thought I gave the role players sufficient direction and they completely destroyed my learning objectives by fucking around.

People unrelated to the student body seem to work best.